> I thought the "main" issue was that with identical 
> hardware, and a fresh
load of XP and then a fresh load of Vista, numerous test 
sites have
indicated that performance on Vista is 30% lower for various 
benchmarks,
with no reasonable explanation from MS as to why Vista is 
considered an
"upgrade".

Businesspeople aren't going to pay for an "upgrade" that 
requires 30%
faster hardware to perform the same.
/>


I'm not a Vista apologist BUT that is in fact exactly what 
has happened since time immemorial. As features are added 
speed generally drops. Sometimes it drops more than is 
bearable for what you feel you get. Moore's law generally 
saves u$oft and others. But, as Moore's law tends to be 
somewhat broken at present Vista is in deeper than usual 
problems.

If you want really fast Word Processing performance with 
minimal memory requirements and small file sizes you should 
try Word 2 :-). Runs well on Windows 3.1. And so, alas, it 
goes.



        Russell 

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist